CIVIL discussion on Current Issues. If you can't stay CIVIL, then please just stay out of this thread.

[miketx]

What does this ^^^^^ mean?
Lying? Who's lying?

I mean, are you miketx already calling me a liar in THIS thread?

Simple, it means what it says.

 

[2aguy]

It is a problem going back to day one on the planet.

Before there were guns there were swords before swords there were pikes before that there were knives before that rocks and clubs before that hands.

It is the people who are doing the killing not the weapons which are inanimate objects.

First murder was done by Cain...it doesn't say how he did it, but I don't think it was with a metal weapon of any kind..

 

[Independent thinker]

I don't own any guns and cannot have a discussion on any particular components of such guns.

I support the 2A 100%, but it was written over 240 years ago.
Things have obviously changed since muzzleloaders.

We license fishing, cars, trucks, boats, trailers, businesses, etc
Cars and trucks weren't even invented yet, so there is obviously nothing in the Constitution about cars and trucks.

I believe that the criminals will always be criminals and will never abide by new or old laws.

So making background checks so they contain ZERO loopholes would not be an infringement.
How is getting a background check infringing. You're a Law Abiding Citizen.

That said, how would we ever patrol private guns sales.
We can't, so quit trying.

Pandora's box is wide open, so nothing will ever really change, I just wish we could stop arguing about it.

Law Abiding Citizens aren't the problem.

That's a small start.
Feel free to discuss this and other current issues.
But be CIVIL.

One thing you didn't take into account is that bad guys will get guns anyway. The left seem to have this fantasy that a bad guy goes to a store to buy a gun and doesn't pass the background check so he can't get a gun at the store. So, he just breaks into homes, cars, etc and gets a gun there. Somewhere in there I think you said criminals don't obey laws and yet you seem to think that if a criminal doesn't pass a background check to get a gun that somehow the game is over and he will obey the law and won't be able to get a gun. That's just not reality.

 

[miketx]

What do you want to discuss? Self defense is a civil and human right, currently under attack by the left.

More than likely he wants to discuss why it's not wrong to kill babies.

 

[JGalt]

I don't own any guns and cannot have a discussion on any particular components of such guns.

I support the 2A 100%, but it was written over 240 years ago.
Things have obviously changed since muzzleloaders.

We license fishing, cars, trucks, boats, trailers, businesses, etc
Cars and trucks weren't even invented yet, so there is obviously nothing in the Constitution about cars and trucks.

I believe that the criminals will always be criminals and will never abide by new or old laws.

So making background checks so they contain ZERO loopholes would not be an infringement.
How is getting a background check infringing. You're a Law Abiding Citizen.

That said, how would we ever patrol private guns sales.
We can't, so quit trying.

Pandora's box is wide open, so nothing will ever really change, I just wish we could stop arguing about it.

Law Abiding Citizens aren't the problem.

That's a small start.
Feel free to discuss this and other current issues.
But be CIVIL.

There are no "loopholes" in background checks. Only the government's inability or unwillingness to enforce them. Case in point: How did Hunter Biden legally-purchase a revolver, even though he was addicted to a Schedule II substance, and lied on the Form 4473? By all rights, he should be in prison right now. Yet, the existing laws were not enforced.

 

[22lcidw]

I don't own any guns and cannot have a discussion on any particular components of such guns.

I support the 2A 100%, but it was written over 240 years ago.
Things have obviously changed since muzzleloaders.

We license fishing, cars, trucks, boats, trailers, businesses, etc
Cars and trucks weren't even invented yet, so there is obviously nothing in the Constitution about cars and trucks.

I believe that the criminals will always be criminals and will never abide by new or old laws.

So making background checks so they contain ZERO loopholes would not be an infringement.
How is getting a background check infringing. You're a Law Abiding Citizen.

That said, how would we ever patrol private guns sales.
We can't, so quit trying.

Pandora's box is wide open, so nothing will ever really change, I just wish we could stop arguing about it.

Law Abiding Citizens aren't the problem.

That's a small start.
Feel free to discuss this and other current issues.
But be CIVIL.

We are not a homogenous society. We are of many different ethnic and racial groups. There are going to be people who believe they have been shafted. It is easier to be violent than to be civil in that scenario. However, to become civil by applying oneself in education and work even if mundane is worthwhile for peace.

 

[marvin martian]

So making background checks so they contain ZERO loopholes would not be an infringement.
How is getting a background check infringing. You're a Law Abiding Citizen.

That's exactly right. Criminals don't go through the background checks.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

First murder was done by Cain...it doesn't say how he did it, but I don't think it was with a metal weapon of any kind..

Good reference!!!!

True. If someone is going to kill........they are going to use any and all tools at their disposal..........hands, rocks, tree limbs...............

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well, good luck with this one.

Anyway, when it comes to the gun issue, on a macro level, the cat is out of the bag. The horse is out of the barn. The toothpaste is out of the tube. There are nearly 400 million guns out there, and while many are owned by careful, responsible gun owners, many are owned by people who have them to commit crimes. So, the saying "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is perfectly reasonable and legitimate.

So in a normal world, we would accept that and then look at areas of compromise like normal adults. Unfortunately, it appears we no longer have that capacity. As a predictable result, we can no longer address problems and are in decline.

I can understand the gun owners' fear about a "slippery slope" on gun laws, and they'll have to be convinced (above and beyond the voices in their world telling them not to listen) that the slippery slope is not in the cards. How is that done? I have no idea.

Seems to me that, like a marriage that is in deep trouble, we need to first learn how to communicate and listen before we can fix any of the larger problems facing us. Not holding my breath on that.

I agree that it is no longer possible to reach any consensus because there is rightfully ZERO trust.

There can only be extremes. And because we must have the tools to exercise a self-defense right, I mast fall on the extreme of no gun laws ever. One side refuses to leave well enough alone so they deserve NOTHING.

I'll just leave it at that.

 

[2aguy]

I don't own any guns and cannot have a discussion on any particular components of such guns.

I support the 2A 100%, but it was written over 240 years ago.
Things have obviously changed since muzzleloaders.

We license fishing, cars, trucks, boats, trailers, businesses, etc
Cars and trucks weren't even invented yet, so there is obviously nothing in the Constitution about cars and trucks.

I believe that the criminals will always be criminals and will never abide by new or old laws.

So making background checks so they contain ZERO loopholes would not be an infringement.
How is getting a background check infringing. You're a Law Abiding Citizen.

That said, how would we ever patrol private guns sales.
We can't, so quit trying.

Pandora's box is wide open, so nothing will ever really change, I just wish we could stop arguing about it.

Law Abiding Citizens aren't the problem.

That's a small start.
Feel free to discuss this and other current issues.
But be CIVIL.

Well...first, a background check violates the 5th Amendment against self incrimination...

To go beyond that, our current system is what we have.....it requires a Federal background check for any purchase at a gun store, or licensed dealer.....

The anti-gun fanatics want universal background checks.....for all sales including private sales of personal property and to relatives and close family members...

The reason they are pushing universal background checks has nothing to do with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals..

Criminals steal their guns, hence, avoid any background check...

Criminals use straw buyers...people who can pass any background check because they have clean records.

The anti-gun fanatics understand this....so why push universal background checks?

1) they want gun registration.....to get gun registration they need the first step of uninversal background checks...so that when they fail, because criminals steal their guns or use straw buyers, they can then come back and demand gun registration.......

2) universal background checks increase the time, money and legal risk for normal gun owners..which the anti-gun fanatics believe will discourage normal people from wanting to get a gun because of the onerous process to get one...

 

[miketx]

 

[2aguy]

For 200+ years the individual right to keep and bear arms was never once in question. Suddenly liberals think they understand the Constitution better than everyone who came before them? I think not.

It isn't that they think they understand the question better....they simply know that to implement their total control over the population, they have to get rid of guns....

See the Sullivan Laws in New York......

 

[skews13]

View attachment 662883

1. Whatever law enforcement or a security agency can carry in their armory should be available for me to purchase as an individual.

2. No taxes on my RIGHT to bear arms!!! If the government wants me to obtain a permit and training then its done on their dime. This is nothing more than a poll tax on my rights and if they can tax this they can tax our right to vote.

*****SMILE*****

Actually, they can tax your right to freedom of movement, if you use any form of transportation, that requires a public road or water way.

The state can force you to obtain insurance for that transportation also.

A private entity, a bank, can force you to obtain insurance on your own home, while you hold a mortgage on it, as well as insurance on the mortgage payment itself.

Which sets a clear precedent than you can be taxed to exercise your gun rights, as well as insurance companies requiring, or even denying you homeowners, or auto and boat insurance, if you store in the home, or transport a gun in the vehicle.

I’m interested to see how anyone thinks a court can force an insurance company to cover you, based on your gun rights.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

We are not a homogenous society. We are of many different ethnic and racial groups. There are going to be people who believe they have been shafted. It is easier to be violent than to be civil in that scenario. However, to become civil by applying oneself in education and work even if mundane is worthwhile for peace.

Many of my teachers in high school preached this. It was also part of the info being taught in American history and Social Studies classes.

Nobody thinks the same, not even in the same ethnic or racial groups. All people are individuals, and you have to deal with that up to a point.

Here's something one of my teachers replied to a student that asked "How do you tell the difference between the low-lifes and the civilized"? The teacher replied "Uncivilized people say it with violence, death, and destruction....whereas civilized people say it with words, facts, and knowledge".

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

View attachment 662890

Yep, said no gangster ever.

 

[2aguy]

Actually, they can tax your right to freedom of movement, if you use any form of transportation, that requires a public road or water way.

The state can force you to obtain insurance for that transportation also.

A private entity, a bank, can force you to obtain insurance on your own home, while you hold a mortgage on it, as well as insurance on the mortgage payment itself.

Which sets a clear precedent than you can be taxed to exercise your gun rights, as well as insurance companies requiring, or even denying you homeowners, or auto and boat insurance, if you store in the home, or transport a gun in the vehicle.

I’m interested to see how anyone thinks a court can force an insurance company to cover you, based on your gun rights.

Nope........already ruled on by the Supreme Court....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.


5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.
------

Page 319 U. S. 108

The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Actually, they can tax your right to freedom of movement, if you use any form of transportation, that requires a public road or water way.

The state can force you to obtain insurance for that transportation also.

A private entity, a bank, can force you to obtain insurance on your own home, while you hold a mortgage on it, as well as insurance on the mortgage payment itself.

Which sets a clear precedent than you can be taxed to exercise your gun rights, as well as insurance companies requiring, or even denying you homeowners, or auto and boat insurance, if you store in the home, or transport a gun in the vehicle.

I’m interested to see how anyone thinks a court can force an insurance company to cover you, based on your gun rights.

Can you tax voting rights?

No?

End of Discussion.

 

[2aguy]

Actually, they can tax your right to freedom of movement, if you use any form of transportation, that requires a public road or water way.

The state can force you to obtain insurance for that transportation also.

A private entity, a bank, can force you to obtain insurance on your own home, while you hold a mortgage on it, as well as insurance on the mortgage payment itself.

Which sets a clear precedent than you can be taxed to exercise your gun rights, as well as insurance companies requiring, or even denying you homeowners, or auto and boat insurance, if you store in the home, or transport a gun in the vehicle.

I’m interested to see how anyone thinks a court can force an insurance company to cover you, based on your gun rights.

The democrats tried to use Poll Taxes to keep blacks from voting....the 14th Amendment also shot that crap down...

 

[JGalt]

Actually, they can tax your right to freedom of movement, if you use any form of transportation, that requires a public road or water way.

The state can force you to obtain insurance for that transportation also.

A private entity, a bank, can force you to obtain insurance on your own home, while you hold a mortgage on it, as well as insurance on the mortgage payment itself.

Which sets a clear precedent than you can be taxed to exercise your gun rights, as well as insurance companies requiring, or even denying you homeowners, or auto and boat insurance, if you store in the home, or transport a gun in the vehicle.

I’m interested to see how anyone thinks a court can force an insurance company to cover you, based on your gun rights.

Except for the fact that transportation, travel, public roads, and waterways aren't a guaranteed Constitutional right.

 

[2aguy]

Except for the fact that transportation, travel, public roads, and waterways aren't a guaranteed Constitutional right.

And the tax isn't on movement, it is to care for and repair the roads...